If the goal of NRP is to empower all people in neighborhoods,
maybe we should let the program die. Instead, we can give block
grants to neighborhoods for city services. For housing
resources, we can seek out new methods of funding.

Part Two - (see separate e-mail for Part One) 

After the city government sets a budget amount based on
projected revenues, and removes certain costs from that amount,
a grant could be assigned to each neighborhood.  The
neighborhood associations, after a public vote, would then
determine which services are most needed and allot the money
accordingly. These neighborhood allotments would then go back to
the city so individual departments could shift staff and other
resources to meet the neighborhood-set priorities. If services
do not get delivered, penalties could be imposed upon the
department and/or compensation allotted to the neighborhood.

If a neighborhood has a large volunteer contingent for picking
up trash and clearing storm drains, that service might not be
"contracted" for in that community.  If another area has a high
crime rate, maybe that neighborhood would consider an extra
police presence in exchange for reduced snow plowing on side
streets (cf. to current NRP-funded bike patrols which are
voluntary overtime for police officers). Maybe neighborhoods
with a high rental-to-owner-occupied population would opt for
more inspectors in various departments  while delaying street
repairs. 

Neighborhoods could also use the process to request new services
they would be willing to "buy." For example, if enough
neighborhoods said weekly street cleaning was important, the
city would be responsible for offering the service in the next
round of budgeting.

Meanwhile, the fire department; certain police functions, such
as investigations of felonies; snow plowing of major roadways,
bike paths, and walkways; intergovernmental affairs, and
inter-neighborhood relations would stay with the city council
and mayor. Parks, libraries, and schools could also be worked
into this block-grant system.

This would keep the communities "empowered" without NRP-specific
money. Moreover, with priorities re-set every 2-5 years, it
would encourage everyone to participate, whether new-comer or
life-long resident, low-income tenant or wealthy property owner.
 

Meanwhile, neighborhood associations could still remain active
in housing development and rehabilitation. Money for specific
projects would not necessarily be government-provided, though.

Even with NRP, we need to pull in more money for housing.  We
also need to find backers who do not need as big a profit margin
on development and operation as large companies demand. One
suggestion for a change for which city officials could advocate
is the wealth of retirees-to-be.

If the federal government, followed by the state, allows IRA
funds to be invested in real property, money would pour into
development and building management.  If this were to happen,
conceivably an individual could invest in an apartment building,
then rent a unit for himself or herself in that building. The
wealth of ownership would accrue to the individual without the
worries of homesteading.  Even if the individual were evicted
for failure to pay rent, the value of the building shares, with
a new tenant, would still accrue to the retirement fund of the
individual. Given all the new securities devices that have been
developed to take advantage of the wealth of retirement money
being invested in stock markets, I have no doubt the industries
providing housing stock would rise to the occasion, given the
opportunity. 

I do not like the way housing has been dealt with at any level
of government. In addition, I see NRP as being very closely tied
to housing policies that don't work. Nevertheless, I like the
attention, even if it's only a token symbolism, government
entities are forced to pay to neighborhoods because of the
leverage NRP money provides. 

Money is a double-edged sword, though. While financial handouts
make it more difficult for neighborhoods to be ignored, their
use also reinforces the stereotype that only money talks. More
importantly, residents moving into a neighborhood after NRP
funds were allocated to specific programs effectively have been
removed from any status of empowerment NRP might have provided.

Rosa Field, Ward 10




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to